164 
sun. This was the case in Peru, in Persia, and in Egypt, and we have 
also the worship of the moon-god in Haran and in Ur of the Chaldees, 
and I suppose the countless bulls, and rams, and hawks, which we find 
at a later stage in Egypt, were partly derived from the fact of the sun 
passing through the different signs of the zodiac, and partly from being 
fierce and powerful animals, unconquerable as the sun in his strength, as also 
the lion, another sign of the zodiac, from the fierce heat of that luminary 
seeming to convey the idea of a lion in his resistless might. In this way, 
ideas such as these led not only to degeneration by the adoption of a 
multiplicity of gods, but to an embodiment of the various attributes of the 
one God in regard to His moral qualities, and His goodness and greatness 
also. (Applause.) As others will wish to take part in the discussion, I 
will say no more. 
Rey. R. AsERcromB1£.—I wish to be allowed to say a few words in regard 
to some statements on the second page of the paper. The author does not say 
that the evolution of religion implies that religion is purely subjective; but 
that “it is difficult to understand how evolution can be supposed to 
accomplish this, unless we suppose the relation, or the consciousness of it, 
to be mere delusion, a figment of the mind, having no distinct objective 
element whatever, but entirely furnished somehow by the working of the 
mind itself.” We must all be aware that Herbert Spencer believes that 
there is an absolute, and the writer of the paper speaks of its being easy to 
show, by such views as those of Herbert Spencer, that religion will dissolve 
in time and “leave not a wrack behind,” but he adds that.“ even the author 
of the Dream Theory of religion is fain to leave something very substantial 
of “a wrack behind.” With reference to this question, we do not take it for 
granted that that which has been evolved by man’s own powers is a figment. 
I would say that we look on geometry and algebra as the result of the 
development of man’s powers; but, nevertheless, we do not look on the 
truths of geometry and algebra as merely subjective, we recognise that they 
hold good in reference to the outer world : therefore, if the mind of man does 
evolve thoughts which correspond to a reality, how can it be said that it is 
difficult to understand that the result of evolution in the case of religion 
can be any other than a figment of the mind? I think the second page of 
this paper requires some explanation ; but I should like to add, that I very 
much appreciate the paper as a whole, and especially the great stress the 
writer lays on the idea of individualism in religion. (Hear, hear.) 
R. J. Hammonp, Esq.—With regard to the argument as to whether indivi- 
duals carry on and develope religious thought in the human race, a proposition 
to which the author of the paper would appear to be adverse, the Chairman 
has told us that the Jewish religion is an exception to the view the writer 
has expressed. In the Jewish religion we have a succession of the prophets 
divinely raised up to carry onward the religious movement. The Jewish 
religion culminated in the Temple, and the Temple seems to be the 
model of the Christian Church. When the Apostle goes to Athens, he 
